[Tyrant]

Would not mind doing it, but other than self-declaration how would I differentiate the newbie games? For instance, should the first n games recorded be considered newbie games? When i first created this i combed through the forum for all the completed games that had threads that i could decipher, and I'd say those games were all newbie games. What about games with a bunch of inexperienced players and one or two ringers? There are a fair number of those.

To my mind, the number of players in the game is probably an even more important variable and i should have set the bar at 8 or 10 instead of 6. A nation that defeats five opponents has not been compared to even a third of the others. Then there's Mods. Should Mod games really be compared to regular ones? Also,many games go unreported, and many many games "stop" instead of ending and the reported winner is the leader at that point, as is determined by that group of players. I got no problem with that, but does it really say anything about the strength of a nation if it wins 'cause a particular small group of players decided the game should go to the person with, say, the best global or the biggest army? <shrug> I could go on at great length here, but i think that my point is close to obvious.

The fact is that this list has curiosity value, but it ain't really the sort of hard data that permits either fine or definite conclusions.

I often have dead time a work these days, so I will have a go at a revised list with obvious newbie games and smaller games combed out and post it separately.